Profile
Search
Register
Log in
The New Rolling Movie Thread
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Hall of Fame

Author Message
Self Conscious



Joined: 01 Apr 2009
Posts: 322
Location: Sleeping in a box car dreaming of lost starts
 Reply with quote  

futuristxen wrote:
Self Conscious wrote:
futuristxen wrote:
Self Conscious wrote:
i tired watching inland empire but couldn't get past the low production values, the standard definition and horrible editing. one of the few films, i can only think of two, that i didn't finish after i started watching them. so i watched Terribly Happy instead.


Wow. How did you watch it? Never heard that complaint about Inland Empire before. It's my favorite Lynch film. It finds this wonderful groove of what Lynch does best, and rather than fuck around, just sits in that groove for like 3 hours. It's a dirge of everything I love about lynch. I could have that movie on a loop for days and not get tired of it. In fact, I think we might have just looped it for like 15 or 16 hours straight when I got it, and just sort of had it as background in our apartment for a day.


on dvd


Hmm. Then I have no idea. My partner doesn't like the film either, but had never heard those types of criticisms as reasons for not liking it before.
I think perhaps you are reacting to specific choices made by the director in terms of lighting, acting, set design, sound, and editing. None of the choices are of a bad quality, but I can see how perhaps you may not have responded well to those choices.

I'd be interested to hear a more specific critique in terms of the production values, to get a better understanding of what you're talking about when you say that.

Because clearly you enjoy other good flims that aren't high production value hollywood affairs.

And then what in the editing bothered you?


i didn't like how bad of quality the picture was, which could have definitely been the reason for me thinking the production quality was bad. the camera shots of the actors that were so close to their face that it didnt look like something that was different but something an amateur would do. when they are following the neighbor up to the main women's house, its shaky and hand-held but in a bad way, it again looked like an amateur did it. I also remember the scene where they are talking about their parts and the camera being way above their head, it was strange and all these types of shots didn't look like he was trying to do something different but that he didn't think it through.

as for the editing, it felt like he was saying, ill film your face turn around and film the actor your talking to then the shots will just alternate when each persons talking, back and forth. in other films they sometimes show the actor who is not talking to show their reaction while we just hear the audio from the other. this did not happen. i don't know if thats the best way to describe it.

I also felt like the sound design was one the worst ive heard. did all they have were the mics on the camera? cause it sure felt that way. when an actor was far from the camera you couldn't hear them and not in a they are further away so it must sound that way but in a our mics cant pick up sound that far away way.

i read that the actor didn't really was script, lynch would just give them lines for the day, and you could tell. it sounds like a good idea in the sense of this movie but it just doesn't work. i get that it creates the feel that these actors don't know what is reality and what is not but it also doesn't let them get into their characters and it shows.
Post Sun Mar 27, 2011 12:59 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
MCGF



Joined: 22 Feb 2010
Posts: 367
 Reply with quote  

I saw Jane Eyre last night. I thought it was pretty damn good.
Post Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:30 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Raoul DeGroot



Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 2437
Location: Son Quest
 Reply with quote  

Yeah, I don't even think Lynch works that groove all that effectively.
The Ramones were a good comparison, I guess.

Obviously one wouldn't want him to incorporate Zack Snyder/Ridley Scott-esque assholery to his camera work, but there's a lack of commitment to the details of the visuals in his stuff that doesn't come out like I think he intends it to.

He's interested in simplicity and banality juxtaposed against moments of the super real and the terror that underpins existence, but I think he's accidently substituting generic, made for TV style camera work for that Edward Hopper style bareness that he really wants.

I think he falls into that because he's an awkward man. One of those guys who has sublime little forests in their heads and it's trapped in a clumsy lumbering body and a squeaky voice.
When your body frustrates the activities of your mind, you fall into approximations and eccentric, half assed settlings for the things you might have reached for.
That haircut he's had for the past 30 years is the best example of that kind of settling. That haircut is a rebuttal to something.
The camera work on inland empire is a rebuttal.

David Lynch's soul resides in his hair. Much like the soul of George Lucas is currently in his chin jowl. Previously it was in his beard.
Post Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:51 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Charlie Foxtrot



Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 1379
Location: Rochester, NY
 Reply with quote  

Raoul DeGroot wrote:
Zack Snyder/Ridley Scott-esque assholery


I thought you liked Ridley Scott
Post Sun Mar 27, 2011 2:50 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Raoul DeGroot



Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 2437
Location: Son Quest
 Reply with quote  

I like late 70's early 80's Ridley Scott.
Modern Ridley Scott is a broken and dead eyed man with too much cold, skilled gumption in his hands.

And even Alien/Bladerunner style Ridley Scott techniques (which are sublime) aren't appropriate in every situation.

I shouldn't even put Zack Snyder next to Scott though. Snyder is like Danny Devito in Twins. Like all the crappy excess of the technically gifted visualist channeled into one clusterfuck of awful choices and near autistic "Of Mice and Men"-like pet mouse stroking.
Zack Snyder is the most bizarre human ever made and it amazes me to see him at work ruining decent ideas with man-childish, VHS generation exuberance.
I can just imagine him in the editing room pumping his fist over his latest triumph of ornately detailed million dollar hackery, soon to explode like a thousand bejewelled onanistic fountains into the dirty athletic socks of our collective souls.
Post Sun Mar 27, 2011 2:57 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Hellen Earth
could be a girl. could be a guy.


Joined: 09 Jan 2003
Posts: 1281
Location: Fitchburg, MA
 Reply with quote  

Snyder's new movie is getting slammed.
Post Sun Mar 27, 2011 3:29 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19374
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

Self Conscious wrote:
futuristxen wrote:
Self Conscious wrote:
futuristxen wrote:
Self Conscious wrote:
i tired watching inland empire but couldn't get past the low production values, the standard definition and horrible editing. one of the few films, i can only think of two, that i didn't finish after i started watching them. so i watched Terribly Happy instead.


Wow. How did you watch it? Never heard that complaint about Inland Empire before. It's my favorite Lynch film. It finds this wonderful groove of what Lynch does best, and rather than fuck around, just sits in that groove for like 3 hours. It's a dirge of everything I love about lynch. I could have that movie on a loop for days and not get tired of it. In fact, I think we might have just looped it for like 15 or 16 hours straight when I got it, and just sort of had it as background in our apartment for a day.


on dvd


Hmm. Then I have no idea. My partner doesn't like the film either, but had never heard those types of criticisms as reasons for not liking it before.
I think perhaps you are reacting to specific choices made by the director in terms of lighting, acting, set design, sound, and editing. None of the choices are of a bad quality, but I can see how perhaps you may not have responded well to those choices.

I'd be interested to hear a more specific critique in terms of the production values, to get a better understanding of what you're talking about when you say that.

Because clearly you enjoy other good flims that aren't high production value hollywood affairs.

And then what in the editing bothered you?


i didn't like how bad of quality the picture was, which could have definitely been the reason for me thinking the production quality was bad. the camera shots of the actors that were so close to their face that it didnt look like something that was different but something an amateur would do. when they are following the neighbor up to the main women's house, its shaky and hand-held but in a bad way, it again looked like an amateur did it. I also remember the scene where they are talking about their parts and the camera being way above their head, it was strange and all these types of shots didn't look like he was trying to do something different but that he didn't think it through.


as for the editing, it felt like he was saying, ill film your face turn around and film the actor your talking to then the shots will just alternate when each persons talking, back and forth. in other films they sometimes show the actor who is not talking to show their reaction while we just hear the audio from the other. this did not happen. i don't know if thats the best way to describe it.

I also felt like the sound design was one the worst ive heard. did all they have were the mics on the camera? cause it sure felt that way. when an actor was far from the camera you couldn't hear them and not in a they are further away so it must sound that way but in a our mics cant pick up sound that far away way.

i read that the actor didn't really was script, lynch would just give them lines for the day, and you could tell. it sounds like a good idea in the sense of this movie but it just doesn't work. i get that it creates the feel that these actors don't know what is reality and what is not but it also doesn't let them get into their characters and it shows.


First David Lynch film, huh? Ha. Yeah none of those things are by accident. They are all distinct choices by the director to create a specific mood. The script stuff, all Lynch films are like that. He wants his actors to be kind of wooden like telenovella/soap opera actors.
Post Sun Mar 27, 2011 4:15 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19374
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

Raoul DeGroot wrote:

He's interested in simplicity and banality juxtaposed against moments of the super real and the terror that underpins existence, but I think he's accidently substituting generic, made for TV style camera work for that Edward Hopper style bareness that he really wants.



Yeah accidentally...for 30 freaking years. Plus Elephant Man and the Straight Story show he could shoot things different if he chose to. Dude likes the made for TV aesthetic because it's freaking nostalgia with the sublime. I don't think the terror would be as palattable if he made the choices you seem to want him to make. He would end up with a Guillermo Del Toro movie if he did it your way. Which is still a fine thing, but in some ways Lynch is akin to Dario Argento in his naked focus solely on the terrible.

I've been rewatching Twin Peaks this week, and it's hilarious how though on the surface the town is very beaver cleaver and "made-for-TV" it is, but as each layer is pealed back more corruption and evil is revealed. Twin Peaks really is his opus.

Lynch's sense of humor is sometimes underappreciated as well. Some of these disjunctions are merely meant to be funny or lewd.

For my money Lynch is the best in his usage of sound, lighting, and camera to the effect of sublime moments. And Inland Empire has some of his best moments strung together one right after another. In Inland Empire, he's finally stopped fucking around and gets right to what you came for, and just does it over and over. Inland Empire he finally understands himself as a filmmaker--as a master of the sublime--and just creates these beautiful youtube esque nodes that you sort of sway into with the barest concern for larger context. Everything fits even as it makes little attempt to.

Makes sense as well considering it started out as a series of web shorts.
Post Sun Mar 27, 2011 4:28 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Captiv8



Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8547
Location: Third Coast
 Reply with quote  

futuristxen wrote:
Raoul DeGroot wrote:

He's interested in simplicity and banality juxtaposed against moments of the super real and the terror that underpins existence, but I think he's accidently substituting generic, made for TV style camera work for that Edward Hopper style bareness that he really wants.



I've been rewatching Twin Peaks this week, and it's hilarious how though on the surface the town is very beaver cleaver and "made-for-TV" it is, but as each layer is pealed back more corruption and evil is revealed.


Just like real life.

I knew you'd be on here defending David Lynch as soon as Self Conscious took that first misstep. For the record, I still haven't finished Inland Empire, nor do I intend to. There are too many other films that I find much more compelling and/or interesting.
Post Sun Mar 27, 2011 5:41 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19374
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

Captiv8 wrote:
futuristxen wrote:
Raoul DeGroot wrote:

He's interested in simplicity and banality juxtaposed against moments of the super real and the terror that underpins existence, but I think he's accidently substituting generic, made for TV style camera work for that Edward Hopper style bareness that he really wants.



I've been rewatching Twin Peaks this week, and it's hilarious how though on the surface the town is very beaver cleaver and "made-for-TV" it is, but as each layer is pealed back more corruption and evil is revealed.


Just like real life.

I knew you'd be on here defending David Lynch as soon as Self Conscious took that first misstep.


Yeah it's sad really. I'm actually fine with people not liking the film. My partner doesn't like Inland Empire either. But the reasons were odd I thought. And so I got sucked in.


Quote:

There are too many other films that I find much more compelling and/or interesting.


I don't watch any other films besides David Lynch. I like comic books more.

I did see Salt recently. It was amazing. I liked when she used the guys body as a silencer. Or when she cut her hair short.
Post Sun Mar 27, 2011 5:55 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
z-spot22



Joined: 19 Dec 2003
Posts: 3101
Location: chicago
 Reply with quote  

anyone catch Sharktopus yet? some of Eric Roberts finest work

and a few Netflix instants i enjoyed....

Kimjongilia - crazy North Korea doc
Ip Man - loved it
Ong Bak 3 - a sequel to a prequel? come on....decent kung fu at least
Endless Summer - i could watch this movie a thousand times and still love it
Restrepo - Afgan war doc, pretty intense

then there's the classic B's like Interceptor Force, Warriors of the Lost World, Order of the Black Eagle, Pray for Death and G.I.Executioner. I gotta admit I like these kinds of movies WAAAAAAY too much

there's a ton of Mystery Science Theater on the flix too and i can watch those all day....especially Devil Fish, It Came From Beneath the Sea and Hercules Against the Moon Men

and of courrse....
Post Sun Mar 27, 2011 6:37 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
LikeWise



Joined: 10 Jul 2004
Posts: 704
 Reply with quote  

I don't think it takes an overly analytical film student to realize that the look of "Inland Empire" is undeniably awful. With that being said, I'm okay with movies looking awful, but despite his purposes, that extremely rough Sony DSR-PD aesthetic doesn't fit with the story/atmosphere. It's semi-suitable for mumblecore films, but not here. I'm a decent fan of Lynch, however. I feel like people either jizz for him too much, or shit on him too much.

As for recent movies, Incendies is pretty amazing. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1255953/

I'm not sure if it has expanded outside of Canada yet, but it's worth seeing. I would suggest not seeing it with your mother though.

"Small Town Murder Songs" is another great movie which most likely hasn't expanded yet, but look for it when it does. Peter Stormare finally steps up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB22oo_f8g0
Post Sun Mar 27, 2011 6:51 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Self Conscious



Joined: 01 Apr 2009
Posts: 322
Location: Sleeping in a box car dreaming of lost starts
 Reply with quote  

futuristxen wrote:
Self Conscious wrote:
futuristxen wrote:
Self Conscious wrote:
futuristxen wrote:
Self Conscious wrote:
i tired watching inland empire but couldn't get past the low production values, the standard definition and horrible editing. one of the few films, i can only think of two, that i didn't finish after i started watching them. so i watched Terribly Happy instead.


Wow. How did you watch it? Never heard that complaint about Inland Empire before. It's my favorite Lynch film. It finds this wonderful groove of what Lynch does best, and rather than fuck around, just sits in that groove for like 3 hours. It's a dirge of everything I love about lynch. I could have that movie on a loop for days and not get tired of it. In fact, I think we might have just looped it for like 15 or 16 hours straight when I got it, and just sort of had it as background in our apartment for a day.


on dvd


Hmm. Then I have no idea. My partner doesn't like the film either, but had never heard those types of criticisms as reasons for not liking it before.
I think perhaps you are reacting to specific choices made by the director in terms of lighting, acting, set design, sound, and editing. None of the choices are of a bad quality, but I can see how perhaps you may not have responded well to those choices.

I'd be interested to hear a more specific critique in terms of the production values, to get a better understanding of what you're talking about when you say that.

Because clearly you enjoy other good flims that aren't high production value hollywood affairs.

And then what in the editing bothered you?


i didn't like how bad of quality the picture was, which could have definitely been the reason for me thinking the production quality was bad. the camera shots of the actors that were so close to their face that it didnt look like something that was different but something an amateur would do. when they are following the neighbor up to the main women's house, its shaky and hand-held but in a bad way, it again looked like an amateur did it. I also remember the scene where they are talking about their parts and the camera being way above their head, it was strange and all these types of shots didn't look like he was trying to do something different but that he didn't think it through.


as for the editing, it felt like he was saying, ill film your face turn around and film the actor your talking to then the shots will just alternate when each persons talking, back and forth. in other films they sometimes show the actor who is not talking to show their reaction while we just hear the audio from the other. this did not happen. i don't know if thats the best way to describe it.

I also felt like the sound design was one the worst ive heard. did all they have were the mics on the camera? cause it sure felt that way. when an actor was far from the camera you couldn't hear them and not in a they are further away so it must sound that way but in a our mics cant pick up sound that far away way.

i read that the actor didn't really was script, lynch would just give them lines for the day, and you could tell. it sounds like a good idea in the sense of this movie but it just doesn't work. i get that it creates the feel that these actors don't know what is reality and what is not but it also doesn't let them get into their characters and it shows.


First David Lynch film, huh? Ha. Yeah none of those things are by accident. They are all distinct choices by the director to create a specific mood. The script stuff, all Lynch films are like that. He wants his actors to be kind of wooden like telenovella/soap opera actors.


actually ive seen The Elephant Man but his distinct choices do nothing for me. i would have sat through it cause i hate not giving the film a chance but i just couldn't invest 3 hours into that movie. the premise seemed really cool and the thing im into. i probably would have been able to get through all the other stuff if the video quality was better. the story is most important but i just couldn't get emotional invested in something that in my opinion looked so poorly done. i think he fails at creating that mood. i might still try Mulholland Dr. but i guess im just not a fan.
Post Sun Mar 27, 2011 7:04 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Self Conscious



Joined: 01 Apr 2009
Posts: 322
Location: Sleeping in a box car dreaming of lost starts
 Reply with quote  

Hellen Earth wrote:
Snyder's new movie is getting slammed.


yea, im not a fan of Snyder minus watchmen. his track record kinda has me worried for superman but i know for sure that superman has an incredibly better script than sucker punch (not that that would be very hard from what i hear).
Post Sun Mar 27, 2011 7:12 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19374
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

I want to see Sucker Punch. I like robots. Girls with swords. And ninjas/samurais.
Post Sun Mar 27, 2011 7:17 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Thu Dec 18, 2014 4:23 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon